But this shot would have been better the Dos Equis guy. If that's Quayle.. I'm not 100% sure. Anyways, the expression on Pence's face shows that some very profound idea was offered for his contemplation.
Posted on 09/20/2021 6:57:25 AM PDT by Right Wing Vegan
I’m going to have to admit I would have enjoyed seeing that, even though it would have been a stretch of his real constitutional role there.
“where is the legal avenue for him to not certify the electors?”
The VP doesn’t certify anything.
He PRESIDES over a session of Congress that COUNTS the votes, in public. This count is subject to objections which are ruled on by the body.
This happened in January 6, 2021 and the body rejected all objections.
But this shot would have been better the Dos Equis guy. If that's Quayle.. I'm not 100% sure. Anyways, the expression on Pence's face shows that some very profound idea was offered for his contemplation.
Pence was not called upon to overturn an election. Your question assumes that Biden won the election. The question to be determined was, what was the result of the election?
The Twelfth Amendment provides:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;— The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; ...
It was the duty of the President of the Senate to ensure that the ballots of the electors were genuine and not fraudulent or fraudulently procured.
The duty of opening the sealed envelopes is assigned by the Constitution to the President of the Senate, who has a lot of power assigned to him as such. Among others, he has the power to rule on disputes of procedure. This duty of opening the sealed envelopes is not assigned to the President of the Senate for no reason, but rather as a check on the legitimacy of the process. Otherwise, it could be assigned to a clerk. Those who argue that Pence had no power are saying that his role could have been filled by a nonentity-- an automatic letter opener would have done the job. Reading the Constitutional provision to be meaningless is not sound interpretation.
If one were to accept the argument that Pence had no power, then the ballots of the electors could be admittedly and publicly fraudulent, yet the only thing the President of the Senate could do would be to open and count the frauds. This also is not sound Constitutional interpretation.
Some have argued that according to statute Pence had to have raised these questions by the fourth Wednesday in December. Pence did not do so. Whether this deadline is a correct reading of the law or not, Pence did have a duty to ensure there was no fraud in the process, especially in light of the widely publicized irregularities and outright frauds.
At the worst, he could have made an effort to challenge questionable ballots and let the issue be fought out in the public forum and/or in the courts. He did nothing; or rather, he acquiesced in the fraud.
There was never a question of him overturning an election. He was charged with the Constitutional responsibility to accept duly approved state results. Several states brought charges of malfeasance in the voting process. He ignored those complaints and approved controversial ballots. He did not need to do that. It was his Constitutional duty to act in accordance with the law, not to overturn an election but to refer controversial elections back to the state to have those controversies resolved. Not that that would have done any good.
Nothing, but he did have the responsibility to hear opposition voices coming from state delegations requesting the certification to be returned to the state to resolve legitimate controversy. That in no way would have usurped Constitutional duty. In fact it would have been the appropriate satisfaction of his Constitutional duty. Not that it would have made any difference barring a forensic audit.
Years ago, I used to think Quayle was great. He was really just another Bushie Boy globalist puke. Spit and vomit on ‘em.
Hi Kalamata!
I agree with what you posted...
I am slightly surprised Pence went to him...Years ago, I thought Quayle was a decent honest man*...but I never thought of him as a Constitutional scholar. Too bad Pence didn’t seek out Mark Levin—If he had, things might be different now :(
Maybe I missed it, but just never hear much about Quayle...what has he been doing for the past however many years? Not much that I am aware of.
Hope you are doing well!
*Eh history has shown differently!
Maybe the symbolism of the Veep quitting in defiance would have been important? Ya think? Or is legitimizing a coup more important to you?
Wow, that is how the country dies. With a pussified whimper.
He (Pence) should have quit and let someone else certify that scam election. He put an ‘R’ stamp on it which is what the Deep State wanted.. Now Chrissy WallASS calls us election deniers loons. Thanks Pence.
Pence is a POS.
Hi to you! : ) It is so nice to see FRiends from the past!!
I guess I would say we are “chugging along” down here, albeit moving a bit slower these days....
Hope you and yours are doing well, too!
There was never a question of him overturning an election. He was charged with the Constitutional responsibility to accept duly approved state results
**************
I’m quoting you “He was charged with the Constitutional responsibility to accept duly approved state results” and that’s exactly what he did. He accepted duly approved state results.
what are you talking about?
What we have here are one or more trolls that continue to come onto FR and claim there was no fraud, or there were only minor irregularities with the election, or the republican elected officials had no choice in the decisions they made. The same weak or erroneous arguments are always made and nothing new is ever added.
Make FR great again!
Yeah. I get it. He could have granted some respect for those who felt the corruption was so rampant they could not get favorable recourse in their state. The issue remains, how do we treat substantial claims of profound and extensive voter fraud?
And the result was no state sent an alternate slate.
Why?
That in no way would have usurped Constitutional duty. In fact it would have been the appropriate satisfaction of his Constitutional duty.
Isn't that the purpose of the challenges to the individual state's slate of electors allowed by law and requiring only a single senator and a single congressman to initiate?
The evidence is objective and does not rely on the opinions of Freepers. To allege that it does is an attempt to mislead.
They are appointed by State Legislatures, NOT ONE OF WHICH OBJECTED TO THEIR APPOINTMENTS, not before December 14, not before January 6, not before January 20, and not to this very day.
You speak of the legislatures as if they were of one mind. There were plenty of individual legislators who objected to this farce, and they may have been a majority, but in several cases they could not do anything as a body because they were in recess and could not assemble to address the problem without intervention from governors who refused to act.
So this too is an attempt to mislead people about what the reality of the situation was.
It also does not address the fact that vote fraud is clearly visible in several states.
THAT is your problem. The people with the authority to govern the ACTUAL Presidential election have made their choice, and you don't like it.
It's not about me, it's about corruption in the system allowing a rigged election.
Yes, I don't like it when corrupt authorities protect corrupt processes. Do you like it? Should we make it about *YOU*?
The legal avenue is that the constitution appoints the "president of the senate" to count the votes. If votes are fraudulent, he has a duty to refuse to count them.
Was there any court case decided in our favor for him to present that as legal reasoning?
I reject all claims that a "court" has to decide something before it is true. It has been my observation that the court system is both corrupt and incompetent too, and cannot be relied upon to ever get anything right, and they should be treated as though they are both corrupt and incompetent.
Look not to the courts for salvation, because they are full of liars and fools.
Do I need to give you a list of various botched court decisions? I would think most conservatives would be well aware of how stupid and deceitful the courts have become.
I am not at all surprised that you did not recognize the situation when I put the same shoe on your foot that you tried to put on mine.
"Rifle" is clearly *NOT* mentioned in the second amendment, yet everyone who isn't a fool understands perfectly that "rifle" is very much within the umbrella of the word "arms", which *IS* in the second Amendment.
Your demanding I show you the exact wording to prove my point was exactly like me asking you to show me where the word "rifle" appeared in the text.
It isn't in the text written in that manner, but the manner in which it *IS* written into the text covers the point.
"President of the Senate" inherently requires discretionary power. If discretionary power is not required, then it would not say "president of the senate."
The "President of the Senate" has the authority to reject votes that he believes is the result of fraud.
H3ll, anyone who is an actual man has the power to refuse to cooperate with a farce.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.